Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting 12 September 3:00 UTC
Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 12 September at 3:00-4:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/VY7kBg Best Regards, Ariel == Action Item None Notes 1. Welcome, roll call & staff - Katrina sent a letter to the ICANN Board, requesting the Board to officially end ccNSO PDP2, so that ccNSO can launch PDP4 which focuses on outlining the difference between string similarity and IDN variant, as well as selection of IDN ccTLD strings, etc. https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-chalaby... - Will better understand the timeline of ccNSO PDP4 following the ccNSO Council meeting next Thursday. GNSO staff will keep coordinating with the ccNSO staff and keep the scoping team informed about the timeline. 2. Conclude identifying problems/issues related to the IDN guidelines/IDN tables (2nd level) - On sending liaison(s) to the ccPDP on IDN ccTLDs, the scoping team plans to ask the GNSO Council to call for volunteer(s) to serve as liaison(s) with the understanding that 1) the liaisons should have some expertise on the subject matter and, 2) not be limited Council members. - There may be some limitations on the number of people who will volunteer for the liaison position. - When the ccNSO PDP4 working group charter is being developed, the liaison aspect will be integrated. GNSO & ccNSO staff will also discuss the number of liaisons in the next coordination call. - For PDPs, the Council usually only assigns a single liaison. - Liaison represents one mechanism for coordination between the ccNSO and GNSO. The Scoping Team may consider holding off sending the Council the request to call for volunteer, and thinking about other mechanisms for coordination. GNSO Council does not need to rush to select liaison(s) yet. - Working conclusion of the IDN Tables/IDN Implementation Guidelines (2nd level): On the topic of ICANN IDN Implementation Guidelines the Scoping Team will propose for the GNSO to set up 2 working groups: 1) an expert group that should include policy/legal and technical/operations expertise to address outstanding issues of the implementation of the guidelines 4.0 and its implications on operations, change of backend registry and the Registry Agreement in particular as it relates to Exhibit A and Spec 6; 2) a policy working group that would look into the appropriate future processes and updates of the IDN Implementation Guidelines, including where it may be appropriate to distinguish/separate from the ccNSO, and how it fits into the broader policy context and technical/operational requirements of gTLDs. - Good to give the Council some indication on the progress and provide an update on the preliminary recommendations for the IDN Tables/IDN Implementation Guidelines. - Staff have been updating the option paper by adding the problem definition outline and will make it compatible with Edmon’s phrasing about the working conclusions. 3. Identifying problems/issues with IDN variant TLD recommendations - Presentation by Sarmad on IDN Variant TLD recommendations - Now is time to consider developing policy regarding the allocation and delegation of the variant TLD recommendations. It may be safe to say that a PDP is probably required. A PDP should probably start from the staff documents for the IDN Variant TLD recommendations. - The scope of work will help inform the selection of mechanism. Helpful questions to think of 1) is there disagreement with the conclusions? if so, which ones and why 2) is there additional research and analysis needed? 3) do you agree with the recommendations, but think there are details or precision missing? in other words, are there gaps in the recommendations? - For example, if additional research and analysis are not needed, then an Issue Report can be skipped and can request the Council to launch an EPDP, and the staff paper could serve as the Issue Report. - What would be the outcome of the GNSO PDP? Even if people agree with all the IDN variant TLD management recommendations, we will still need an official process to validate the recommendations. We could potentially rely on some inflight PDPs (RPM, SubPro) to validate those recommendations. - Maybe some part of the recommendations can be deliberated by SubPro, but some other parts cannot work, as it is forward looking. GNSO Council can also change the scope of SubPro PDP, if necessary. - One of the problems with the recommendation is about the multiple applicant for variant TLDs. 4. AOB
Hello Team, The agenda of the upcoming meeting will focus on continuing the discussion from last meeting: Identifying problems/issues with IDN variant TLD recommendations. In advance of the next meeting, staff thought it might be useful to try and get conversation started on this topic over email, which from our perspective was helpful to think along the lines below as identified in the last meeting. In respect of the IDN Variant TLD Implementation: Is there disagreement with the conclusions? if so, which ones and why Is there additional research and analysis needed? Do you agree with the recommendations, but think there are details or precision missing? In other words, are there gaps in the recommendations? This is not intended to limit the discussion in any way but rather to initiate discussion and hopefully streamline the conversation during the actual meeting. The logic in thinking through the issues and expected level of work is that you then have better information to make a decision on the proper policy development vehicle (i.e., new PDP, new EPDP, leverage in-flight PDPs). Best, Steve From: gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang via gnso-council-IDN-scoping <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Reply-To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 8:44 AM To: "gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org" <gnso-council-idn-scoping@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-Council-IDN-Scoping] Actions & Notes: GNSO IDN Scoping Team Meeting 12 September 3:00 UTC Dear All, Please find below the action items and notes captured during the IDN Scoping Team call on Thursday, 12 September at 3:00-4:00 UTC. Staff has posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/VY7kBg Best Regards, Ariel == Action Item None Notes 1. Welcome, roll call & staff - Katrina sent a letter to the ICANN Board, requesting the Board to officially end ccNSO PDP2, so that ccNSO can launch PDP4 which focuses on outlining the difference between string similarity and IDN variant, as well as selection of IDN ccTLD strings, etc. https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-chalaby... [ccnso.icann.org] - Will better understand the timeline of ccNSO PDP4 following the ccNSO Council meeting next Thursday. GNSO staff will keep coordinating with the ccNSO staff and keep the scoping team informed about the timeline. 2. Conclude identifying problems/issues related to the IDN guidelines/IDN tables (2nd level) - On sending liaison(s) to the ccPDP on IDN ccTLDs, the scoping team plans to ask the GNSO Council to call for volunteer(s) to serve as liaison(s) with the understanding that 1) the liaisons should have some expertise on the subject matter and, 2) not be limited Council members. - There may be some limitations on the number of people who will volunteer for the liaison position. - When the ccNSO PDP4 working group charter is being developed, the liaison aspect will be integrated. GNSO & ccNSO staff will also discuss the number of liaisons in the next coordination call. - For PDPs, the Council usually only assigns a single liaison. - Liaison represents one mechanism for coordination between the ccNSO and GNSO. The Scoping Team may consider holding off sending the Council the request to call for volunteer, and thinking about other mechanisms for coordination. GNSO Council does not need to rush to select liaison(s) yet. - Working conclusion of the IDN Tables/IDN Implementation Guidelines (2nd level): On the topic of ICANN IDN Implementation Guidelines the Scoping Team will propose for the GNSO to set up 2 working groups: 1) an expert group that should include policy/legal and technical/operations expertise to address outstanding issues of the implementation of the guidelines 4.0 and its implications on operations, change of backend registry and the Registry Agreement in particular as it relates to Exhibit A and Spec 6; 2) a policy working group that would look into the appropriate future processes and updates of the IDN Implementation Guidelines, including where it may be appropriate to distinguish/separate from the ccNSO, and how it fits into the broader policy context and technical/operational requirements of gTLDs. - Good to give the Council some indication on the progress and provide an update on the preliminary recommendations for the IDN Tables/IDN Implementation Guidelines. - Staff have been updating the option paper by adding the problem definition outline and will make it compatible with Edmon’s phrasing about the working conclusions. 3. Identifying problems/issues with IDN variant TLD recommendations - Presentation by Sarmad on IDN Variant TLD recommendations - Now is time to consider developing policy regarding the allocation and delegation of the variant TLD recommendations. It may be safe to say that a PDP is probably required. A PDP should probably start from the staff documents for the IDN Variant TLD recommendations. - The scope of work will help inform the selection of mechanism. Helpful questions to think of 1) is there disagreement with the conclusions? if so, which ones and why 2) is there additional research and analysis needed? 3) do you agree with the recommendations, but think there are details or precision missing? in other words, are there gaps in the recommendations? - For example, if additional research and analysis are not needed, then an Issue Report can be skipped and can request the Council to launch an EPDP, and the staff paper could serve as the Issue Report. - What would be the outcome of the GNSO PDP? Even if people agree with all the IDN variant TLD management recommendations, we will still need an official process to validate the recommendations. We could potentially rely on some inflight PDPs (RPM, SubPro) to validate those recommendations. - Maybe some part of the recommendations can be deliberated by SubPro, but some other parts cannot work, as it is forward looking. GNSO Council can also change the scope of SubPro PDP, if necessary. - One of the problems with the recommendation is about the multiple applicant for variant TLDs. 4. AOB
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Steve Chan